The Nuclear Plan: India’s Indecision Lingers

After another inconclusive meeting (pictured right) with the United States, India has once again neglected to move forward with the controversial implementation of civilian nuclear deal. Instead, they have postponed their participation in this particular pact until more of the consequences can be analyzed. While India remains skeptical of the N-Deal, pressures from the US are mounting as the presidential elections creep closer. Arguments and accusations have been made on both sides about the actual incentives and goals of this nuclear deal, which have only caused further delay of a decision. It seems that the political disparities and petty tiffs between the two countries have created a halo effect around the nuclear deal, which has masked the many potential economic and intercontinental relations benefits that an agreement like this could bring if implemented correctly. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary to resolve all domestic and political differences regarding the deal first.

The N-Deal, which was proposed in July of 2005, was a “landmark agreement” on civilian nuclear energy cooperation between the US and India, but has generated controversy since the day it was produced. Critics of this deal, such as Jayanti Natarajan--an Indian lawyer and politician-- say that it is too intrusive, requiring more intense inspections, which“undermines attempts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear arms and [that it will] potentially contribute to a nuclear arms race in Asia.” Some details of the nuclear deal may actually allow terrorists to access nuclear weapons more easily. This is one of the many things the US must monitor if the deal is signed. Now, it is said that the added pressure is simply due to the Bush Administration’s need to tie up loose ends before Washington becomes too busy with issues concerning the presidential elections occurring in November 2008. Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of Political Affairs, commented that “it is smart to get it back to the Congress in a time when they will have the time to look at it and not to get it too deep into our election year.” Burn's comments call into question the objectives of the US government and indicates that the US is simply trying to do as much as they can while they still have the the political power. These criticisms pose valid arguments as to why the nuclear deal should be abolished. Although, is nixing the deal and potentially never knowing what kinds of nuclear technologies India has been producing really the best deccision?

Shared knowledge of nuclear technology and information reduces the risk of a nuclear attack happening. If India decides to sign this pact, there is no doubt that the information gained through an open transfer of knowledge would foster a much needed relationship with the United Nations Security Council. The more information that is disclosed to the UN, the easier it will be to monitor nuclear action. The deal would open new trade opportunities and strengthen the US relationship with India, which is already hesitant to form closer political and strategic ties with the US, due the possibility of losing their military advantage. It would also provide India with US assistance in their civilian nuclear program, and expand cooperation in energy and satellite technologies. (Facility pictured left) Even though there is a significant number of advantages, India should be concerned about the effect of declining such a deal. Questions of reliability start to arise around other topics of conversation. It is possible that other countries, like China or England--both countries participate in valuable trade with India-- could start to see them as resistant and unpredictable to agreements. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said that there would “undoubtedly be disappointment and also there would be a question as to what extent one can calculate Indian reaction to the negotiations on other subjects.” It is fair to say that this issue cannot be dragged on forever, and that a decision needs be reached in order to make any significant progress. However, India should be given more time to consider if the gain of powerful ally is worth sacrificing so much of their privacy.

The importance of this topic tends to be more sensitive and should not be rushed. While there is a remaining concern regarding the need to prevent nuclear conflict, forcing an agreement that may still have loopholes is not the answer. The criticisms mentioned before are some of what has made this N-Deal so controversial. The US and India should focus on that which would involve India in the global atomic energy commerce. The n-deal may help India “meet the future energy needs of an economy steaming along with an annual growth rate of 9%.” India needs to consider the ramifications if the nuke deal is rejected and how it will affect their relations with the other parts of the world. As for now, the civilian nuclear deal is put on hold, but not considered completely dead. The US should take this time to refine the guidelines of the deal to make it more appealing and concrete for India rather than put more pressure them.

Turkey Versus the PKK: Prepared to Go to the Next Level

The tension is rising on the Iraqi-Turkish border, threatening the start of full-fledged war within a matter of days. The Kurdistan Working Party, generally referred to as the PKK, has been fighting with the Turkish government to establish more autonomy for the Kurds. Due to their recent attacks on Turkey, there have been reports of enormous domestic pressure within Turkey (depicted left) to launch an attack on the Kurdish separatists operating in Northern Iraq. While retaliating using military forces may satisfy the Turks need for revenge, another attack will only destabilize the region more, inevitably throwing both sides into battle. Many other countries, such as Iraq and the US, are concerned because an escalation of this conflict may require their intervention. Despite this looming danger, with enough international influence, the two battling parties might be convinced to ceasefire and come to a diplomatic solution so as to avoid a potentially violent encounter.

The PKK was formed in the 1970’s with the purpose of demanding an independent Kurdish state within Turkey. The region of Kurdistan covers large parts of eastern Turkey, northwestern parts of Iraq and Iran, and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia. (pictured right) Turkey and many Western countries regard the PKK as a terrorist organization due to the escalating attacks on the Turkish government over last few years. Firat Anli, a district mayor in Diyarbakir says, "the result of the political and social problems in the region not being resolved." The recent attacks, which have killed both Turkish soldiers and civilians, show that the PKK is not at all interested in talking and has no intention of attending any meetings in Turkish Parliament until the demands for a more autonomous state are met. Since the formation of the PKK, more radical groups have branched off organizing their own attacks in parts of Turkey. The longer this fight continues, the more unstable the Kurdistan region will become, making it even harder to promote diplomacy in the future.

The United States, along with the Iraqi governments, has separately tried to mediate the conflict between Turkey and the PKK by condemning any military attacks from either side. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called on the Turks to practice "self-restraint." However, the Turkish government has already made arrangements to cross into Iraq to pursue Kurdish military bases that have been suspected of conducting the attacks in Turkey. Respecting the wishes of their western allies, Turkey has agreed to postpone any attacks in hopes that the US will find a way to stop PKK activity. If the US and other external influences fail to accomplish this task, the Turkish military will not hesitate to move forward with the planned incursion. The Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani said “his autonomous region would defend itself in any way if Turkish troops invaded.” Not only are the actions taken by the PKK causing Turkey distress, they are also upsetting the Iraqi citizens who have had to deal with the turmoil brought about by the attacks prompted by the PKK.

While this dispute is between Turkey and the PKK, left alone to deal with their problems, it would surely result in a violent end. The action of the PKK thus far have proven to affect many more lives than just their own. The Iraqi government has also expressed a desire for the Kurdish separatists to leave Iraq, since the PKK is positioned in the mountains housing many Iraqi citizens who have had to flee their homes in fear of Turkish attacks. The US and the Iraqi governments should place added international pressure on the PKK and Turkey cease fire and to handle the situation centrally, since the implications actions of these regions are starting to spread.

Kurdish rebels have offered a conditional ceasefire on Turkey if the military agrees to abandon their plans to enter into Northern Iraq and comply with their demands for more autonomy. The PKK has not agreed to release any of the Turkish prisoners currently incarcerated and have not agreed to any previous demands from the Turkish government. However, this ceasefire may be the only opportunity to extinguish a potential war between the two regions, but external parties, including the US, must act swiftly. Turkish Foreign Minister published a statement saying, "We will continue these diplomatic efforts with all good intentions to solve this problem caused by a terrorist organization." But he added: "If we do not reach any results, there are other means we might have to use." (Illustrated in picture above) The chances of reaching an agreement in such a short time are not likely, but an extension of the ceasefire may help to calm each side and resume diplomatic options. International influence will be a key contributor to the success of this endeavor.

"The Industry of War":Blackwater rasies concern about Military Outsourcing

In the last several decades the notion of outsourcing military service to groups, categorized as private military corporations, has become an increasing trend. Governments have been outsourcing these contractors to provide military and security services in unstable regions of the world, but have been causing more controversy than solution. Blackwater USA,(pictured left) a private military contractor primarily stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been accused of their involvement in civilian deaths, which has made it hard to justify the need for and effectiveness these companies. The problem with outsourcing security services is that companies, such as Blackwater, are not held accountable for their actions and are beyond the reach of any legitimate authority, making it unclear on how to punish them, if at all able, for any unlawful acts. The international laws surrounding hired military contractors are not clearly defined, making it hard to know under which jurisdiction these companies operate. If something is not done to tighten regulations on privatization, the existence of these companies abroad could start to become dangerous.

Private military corporations (PMCs) have been used for many years providing a variety of security services ranging from peacekeeping and post war civil training to armed site security and weapons destruction. PMCs are hired and work under government contracts. The “employees” of these corporations are tactically trained and have developed specific skills that solidify their effectiveness abroad. Traditionally, they are seen as an extension of the military force already deployed in a specific country. Many people argue that the most powerful military groups, such as the U.S., are extremely dependent on PMCs and cannot effectively function without the use of their services. Others, like the UN, oppose the outsourcing of force and are not impressed with their attempts at peacekeeping, as it is something that requires much "more sensitivity" than what PMCs operate with.

The controversy surrounding Blackwater USA stems from whether the specific conduct of Blackwater has overstepped U.S. efforts in the War in Iraq. Reports of civilian killings, such as the Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad on September 16th, where twenty-eight Iraqi civilians were killed, have caused people to second guess the motives behind this particular private contractor and have held very few people responsible for these actions. Some criticisms focus on the fact that there have been hundreds of killings, both documented and undocumented, which have not yet been explained. Reports indicate that, “since 2005 Blackwater operatives in Iraq have opened fire on at least 195 occasions. In more than 80% of these instances, the Blackwater agents fired first.” Eric Prince,(pictured right) the co-founder of Blackwater, spoke last week in front of a Congressional committee and admitted for the first time that his men stationed in Iraq have “acted inappropriate at all times.” Compared to the devastation these civilian shootings have caused the families of the victims, simply stating that they acted inappropriately does not seem like a suitable answer. The details of the incidents are under investigation and until then, it is up to the Justice Department to prosecute the Blackwater employees for their actions. There are very few direct consequences to the PMCs actions, thus, there is very little keeping them from committing more unlawful acts.

It is my opinion that while militaries depend on the services of these private military corporations, there are far too many flaws in their foundation for them to be considered an effective entity. Until these PMCs(shown left), like Blackwater, can establish clear accountability, which can be agreed upon internationally, they should not be allowed to operate abroad. If contractors misbehave, as they have done so far in Iraq, they rarely face charges. Blackwater chose to “fire” the man in charge of operations during the Iraqi civilian shootings, but he was not charged with anything. This needs to change. By creating a set of international laws, these PMCs can be more closely regulated, decreasing the probability of any more “mistakes” in the future.

Myanmar: The Fight for Democracy

Recently, the social-political status in Myanmar has been a topic of discussion in the international media. The erratic behavior of the military-based government(shown in action to the right) has resorted to violent tactics to ward off democratic opposition. The actions taken by the government have shocked the world. Reports of kidnappings and opening fire on crowds of protesters have instilled a sense of fear throughout the country, but it has not stopped efforts for a democratic change. The current leaders of the Myanmar junta have hypocritically claimed that their actions are justified to maintain “stability” within their nation, to me it seems more like a fear of change.

Myanmar has been fighting about democracy for the past forty-five years. The junta, a military-run government lead by Than Shwe, has control of the country, fighting against monks and other members of National League for Democracy (NLD) to keep democracy out of their politics. Last week was one of the largest protests and demonstrations against the junta, who retaliated and opened fire on the protesting crowds and arrested dozens on site. Inexplicable “disappearances” of pro-democratic leaders have been an increasing trend in Myanmar and have added to the severity of the situation. An observer quoted, “at least 85 protest leaders, over 1,000 monks, and between 300 and 400 students and activists were arrested". It is an attempt at silencing the voices of change. The government has tried to keep these protests (pictured left) out of international media as much as possible and have reportedly given false details of some of the more recent events. The entire country is under extremely tight surveillance, for example, “the military rulers have sought to limit news flowing out of Myanmar, with public Internet access restricted and mobile phone service sporadic for a fourth day in a row”. This kind of behavior may be perceived as hiding facts about what may really be happening.

On Sunday, a UN specific envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, was supposed to meet with leaders of the junta and the leader of the NLD in Myanmar in response to their bloody crackdown last week against the biggest pro-democracy protests in almost twenty years. However, his meetings were postponed due to the protests that had been going on throughout the week. Gambari had intentions of working out a solution to end this political crisis from which this country is suffering. Senior General Than Shwe, who ultimately has the power to change current policies, has conveniently made himself “unavailable” to meet with the UN envoy. This is a sure sign of resistance to any international pressure to become more democratic. Gambari was, however, able to talk with Suu Kyi, a major contributor and influence in the NLD, to see what her thoughts on the situation were.(pictured right) She was less than optimistic about coming to a peaceful or immediate agreement with a political power that is so intent on staying just the way that they are. The junta is content on having one major power ruling, much like a dictatorship, versus changing political leaders every few years.

There does not seem to be much hope for any drastic changes in the government, unless the military leaders realize that to achieve stability, there must be a compromise between the two fighting parties. Perhaps, if the UN envoy can influence Shwe to be more open to international suggestion, there would be less turmoil in Myanmar. Gambari is scheduled to meet with more members of the Myanmar government later on this week in hopes of making some progress towards a more peaceful. The members of the NLD and activist have vowed not to quit fighting to achieve democracy in their country.